This paper provides a comparative review of data encryption methods in the United States and Europe, highlighting the differences in legal frameworks, regulatory philosophies, and implementation approaches. In the United States, data encryption is primarily governed by federal laws and industry standards, with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) playing a central role in recommending cryptographic standards. The Department of Commerce oversees export controls on encryption technology. The U.S. approach balances national security needs with individual privacy rights, often leading to legal debates over law enforcement access to encrypted data. In contrast, Europe has adopted a more privacy-centric approach, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a cornerstone of data protection. The GDPR mandates the use of encryption to protect personal data and imposes strict penalties for non-compliance. European countries emphasize end-to-end encryption in communication services to ensure confidentiality. Both regions prioritize encryption, but their approaches reflect different values and legal philosophies. The U.S. tends to navigate a delicate balance between national security and individual rights, while Europe places a stronger emphasis on the protection of personal data as a fundamental right. Technologically, both regions adopt similar standards, with AES being widely used. However, differences exist in key management and regulatory oversight. The paper concludes that a comparative review of data encryption methods in the USA and Europe reveals the complex interplay between security, privacy, and legal frameworks. Understanding these differences is crucial for multinational organizations and individuals navigating the intricate landscape of global data protection.This paper provides a comparative review of data encryption methods in the United States and Europe, highlighting the differences in legal frameworks, regulatory philosophies, and implementation approaches. In the United States, data encryption is primarily governed by federal laws and industry standards, with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) playing a central role in recommending cryptographic standards. The Department of Commerce oversees export controls on encryption technology. The U.S. approach balances national security needs with individual privacy rights, often leading to legal debates over law enforcement access to encrypted data. In contrast, Europe has adopted a more privacy-centric approach, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a cornerstone of data protection. The GDPR mandates the use of encryption to protect personal data and imposes strict penalties for non-compliance. European countries emphasize end-to-end encryption in communication services to ensure confidentiality. Both regions prioritize encryption, but their approaches reflect different values and legal philosophies. The U.S. tends to navigate a delicate balance between national security and individual rights, while Europe places a stronger emphasis on the protection of personal data as a fundamental right. Technologically, both regions adopt similar standards, with AES being widely used. However, differences exist in key management and regulatory oversight. The paper concludes that a comparative review of data encryption methods in the USA and Europe reveals the complex interplay between security, privacy, and legal frameworks. Understanding these differences is crucial for multinational organizations and individuals navigating the intricate landscape of global data protection.